Com-Central.net

Shadow_Bshwackr · Posted: Wed Feb 01, 2006 11:59 pm Post subject: Re: Training Tank Only

Nice pics fellas...

Chris_C · Posted: Thu Feb 02, 2006 12:27 am Post subject: Re: Training Tank Only

- bsmart

Here is a picture of the Weirton T95. Cast in the lower front hull is a Ser No 5 so I think your ID is confirmed

I grew up about 45 minutes south of Weirton, so it was nice seeing this vehicle being discussed. I have some more photos I could scan if anyone wants them.

Dontos · Posted: Thu Feb 02, 2006 12:30 am Post subject: Re: Training Tank Only

Neil is as 'GAA - GAA' on the MBT 70 / XM803 as I am on the Ontos.

Nice one Neil

Don

Neil_Baumgardner · Posted: Thu Feb 02, 2006 1:34 am Post subject: Re: Training Tank Only

- Dontos

Neil is as 'GAA - GAA' on the MBT 70 / XM803 as I am on the Ontos.

Nice one Neil

Don

Yeah, oddities - ie prototypes, pilots, etc is kinda my thing. Probably started after I saw the T30 at Fort Jackson when I was in school at USC and couldnt find anything on it in the references I had - and this multiplied many-fold when I visited Aberdeen Proving Ground of course. For a lot of these vehicles, little to no info exists on them on the web, although I have since been able to find good book sources.

But even Hunnicutt isnt a good source for info on individual pilots & prototypes of a particular model. I've been able to piece together the MBT-70 puzzle over the last year or so in large part due to this board. Much of the T95 family puzzle remains a mystery - conflicting numbers in sources, discrepencies between hull numbers & pilot numbers, etc.

My long-talked-about-but-never-gotten-around-to goal is an website that would focus initially on US prototypes & pilots. From visits to APG & Knox, I now have a pretty good archive. Further updates would include more common US armor as well as British, French & Canadian (from to visits to Bovington, Saumur & Ottawa). I literally have GBs worth of armor pics...

Someday... Unfortunately work & grad school kinda get in the way...

Neil

Chris_C · Posted: Thu Feb 02, 2006 2:09 am Post subject: Re: Training Tank Only

- binder001

For the M60s - I remember hearing about some of these with the welded "Training Only" or "Non-ballistic". I was also told once that these were ex-prototype vehicles, the mild steel was used as it was easier to work on than hardened armor.

I should have added this to my post about the T95, sorry...

On some areas of the hulls of the four pilot M60s and fifteen production tanks, the armor was thinned down to reduce weight. It was then determined that these areas were not sufficiently protected, so these vehicles were given to the Armor School as training tanks.

bsmart · Posted: Thu Feb 02, 2006 1:11 pm Post subject: Re: Training Tank Only

I'll make a sot at the 'generations

The M3 had a smaller cousin (The M6?) that was a 37mm mounted on a 1 1/2 ton truck chassis. It was quickly decided that anything that light was no longer an AT weapon. I think some were used in the Pacific for bunker busting

There was also a 57mm variation of the M3 that may have been foisted off on the British

The full track TDs started with the M10 which morphed into the M36

The hotrodders got into the act with the M18 causing some M10 units to be reequiped with the M18 and some with the more powerful but slower M36. ( The M10s were converted to gun tractors for Heavy Artillery or used to convert towed TD units to SP units). The Brits converted some M10s to Aichelles by replacing the 3" with a 17 pdr.

Also I think the M12 GMC had great potential as an AT weapon but technically it was an SP field gun so it probably doesn't count in the lineage (but it could sure surprise a German Cat :-))

After WWII the term Tank Destroyer (and the Branch) disappeared. The only folks (In the Army) interested in an Antitank vehicle smaller than a tank were the Airborne folks who saw the potential of tbeing speed bumps to the Russian and Chinese Hordes

The Ontos and the M-56 SPAT/Scorpion selfpropelled 90mm were the outcome of that. I've always assumed there was some interest in the Ontos by the Army but that it lost out to a more conventional M-56, but I may be wrong.

Anyway the advent of the ATGM ended the 'need' for a light AT platform and various vehicle and manpacked ATGMs have taken over.

Since I did this all 'off the cuff ' with no use of reference materials I'm sure I missed some but it should get the ball rolling.

David_Reasoner · Posted: Thu Feb 02, 2006 1:54 pm Post subject: Re: Training Tank Only

The biggest users of the 57mm on M3 halftrack (T48 GMC IIRC) were the Red Army. Although originally produced for the British, the Brits passed them directly to the Soviets, who organized them into SP antitank regiments.

The M6 GMC was the 37mm gun on Dodge 3/4 ton weapons carrier chassis. They saw very brief service in Tunisia, with some of the guns later being remounted on M2 halftracks.

Prewar US tank destroyer doctrine called for the TD units to be a very mobile (corps level) reserve intended to quickly backstop an armored breakthrough of the front. The M6 and M18 gun motor carriages were the epitome of this concept of speed and mobility to allow the units to be rapidly deployed where they were needed. Kind of a "fire brigade" approach to antitank defense.

David

Dontos · Posted: Thu Feb 02, 2006 1:55 pm Post subject: Re: Training Tank Only

<DING, DING, DING, DING>

Bob

Awesome! You nailed it.

(I had actually forgotten about the 37mm on the truck, so....)

bsmart · Posted: Thu Feb 02, 2006 4:06 pm Post subject: Re: Training Tank Only

I figured either the 37mm or the 57mm were the 'Gotchas' in the Family tree. I'm probably the only one who thinks about using a 155mm SP gun as an AT weapon Smile

I have seen reports about them being used as direct fire AT guns. I know there was an AP round made for the 155, it was actually called 'Semi Armor Piercing' since it was meant for coast defence use and in Naval terms didn't rate a full armor piercing designation, but the reports I've seen didn't mention the ammo used. Since the M12s were also used as direct fire weapons against the West Wall defences there might have been AP rounds available. Do you think the 155L60 gun would have any problem with a Panther or a Tiger Smile

By the way Don was the Ontos considered for the Airborne AT role that the M56 had? I figure you probably know if anyone does

David_Reasoner · Posted: Thu Feb 02, 2006 5:06 pm Post subject: Re: Training Tank Only

Bob, I believe the 155mm used on the M12 was actually the older M1917 155L45. The newer "Long Tom" was used on it's successor, the M40 GMC. Either way, I would not want to be on the wrong end, AP or SAP ( or HE for that matter) Even if it doesn't penetrate, a hundred pound shell arriving at well over 2000fps is bound to make an impression. The M12 was also used in a point-blank direct fire role against the old French forts at Metz.

David

SFC_Jeff_Button · Posted: Thu Feb 02, 2006 6:45 pm Post subject: Re: Training Tank Only

On about the forth posting, page 1 of this long thread, there is a picture of an M60 tank, (full shot). I noticed that the road wheels are ribbed looking. I dont believe I've seen this before on a modern tank, aren't they all usually smooth dished. It caught my eye because being on a wash rack with a fire hose cleaning these would make alot of back spray when it hits those ribs, pain in the butt to clean. Experimental?

Chris_C · Posted: Thu Feb 02, 2006 7:09 pm Post subject: Re: Training Tank Only

No, they were aluminum wheels used to save weight (65 lb per wheel). They needed steel backing plates to protect them from the track guides. They were dropped in May 1980 in favor of steel wheels again, since the aluminum wheels were more expensive.

Neil_Baumgardner · Posted: Thu Feb 02, 2006 8:18 pm Post subject: Re: Training Tank Only

- David_Reasoner

Bob, I believe the 155mm used on the M12 was actually the older M1917 155L45. The newer "Long Tom" was used on it's successor, the M40 GMC. Either way, I would not want to be on the wrong end, AP or SAP ( or HE for that matter) Even if it doesn't penetrate, a hundred pound shell arriving at well over 2000fps is bound to make an impression. The M12 was also used in a point-blank direct fire role against the old French forts at Metz.

David

Took me a while to find, but here are penetration stats for the M1918 155mm (also carried on the M12). I have included 76mm and 17 pdr stats for comparison. Interestingly, the 155 has better penetration than the 76 - but not the 17 pounder! Although there is more than penetration. Even if you're not penetrated, you could be rendered inoperable due to sheer impact force (ie everything breaks inside & outside).

"Sherman, A History of the American Medium Tank", R. P. Hunnicutt, Presidio Press, 1978, pages 559-570. Ranges in yards; armour type (FH = Face-hardened, H = Homogenous) as shown at 30Ã‚Âº.

Weapon Ammo Type 600 yds 1000 yds
76mm APC M62 H 93 88
M1918 M112B1 FH 109 102
M1918 AP H 127 119
17 pdr APCBC H 140 130
17 pdr APSV/DS H 208 192

No stats given for the M1918 penetration at 1600 & 2000 yds.

Neil

Com-Central.net

Select Language

Login

`±`Recent Visitors

`±`User Info-big

Com-Central.net

Select Language

Login

±Recent Visitors

±User Info-big

`±`Recent Visitors

`±`User Info-big